7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
This verse seemed off-the-wall to me when I first read through the Gospel of Thomas. This makes absolutely no sense, I thought. After some thought, my current idea is that the lion represents our animal natures, our base instincts, the passions that enslave us. If we "eat" the lion, we transform and transcend it. On the other hand, if we allow ourselves to be overcome by the lion, then we go through a world of suffering, even though we'll come around in the end. ("and the lion still will become human.")
If anyone has more penetrating insight, please share!
The gospel of Thomas is considered by many to be spiritual poison. I agree.
On another note, I would like to say that the theory of karma (wages of sin) continually resulting in being recycled into unpleasant lives is not really inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. That is, if one isn't somehow relieved of the karma debt (sin), one is condemned to staying in the realm of darkness. The question is, how can a blind man make himself see? True, repeated experiences of lives may serve as a form of purgatory in order to point the way out of the cycle of endless TIME (time isn't money, time is work, time is sin), but this, according to the Bible, isn't what is appointed. You're still part of the sin realm if you go to hell where your worm doesn't die and the flames aren't extinguished (that is, you're sent to a very harsh labor camp which has no exit from the sin-life treadmill, but there is still a glimmer of hope). What is appointed is to die once and avoid being cast back into that maelstrom, which is reserved for the devil and his angels. Still, a blind man can't make himself see. He needs a doctor.
I don't think the Gospel of Thomas is spiritual poison at all. I think it just seems weird because we aren't accustomed to these other sayings of Jesus. However, so far I haven't encountered anything in the Gospel of Thomas that seems wrong. One problem with this gospel is that it lacks an oral tradition, so that many of the sayings are hard to understand without any context. In any event, suggesting that this gospel is poisonous is very strong language. Are there particular ideas that it suggests that don't sit well with you?
I haven't read this tract in a long time, so I don't recall specifics. However, my recollection is that there were things that seemed intended to nullify the unity of Jesus as God and Jesus as man and to put a false interpretation on the resurrection. In general, I have found that the men who selected the biblical canon did a good job of separating out chaff, though there is some disagreement about the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha).
5 comments:
This verse seemed off-the-wall to me when I first read through the Gospel of Thomas. This makes absolutely no sense, I thought. After some thought, my current idea is that the lion represents our animal natures, our base instincts, the passions that enslave us. If we "eat" the lion, we transform and transcend it. On the other hand, if we allow ourselves to be overcome by the lion, then we go through a world of suffering, even though we'll come around in the end. ("and the lion still will become human.")
If anyone has more penetrating insight, please share!
The gospel of Thomas is considered by many to be spiritual poison. I agree.
On another note, I would like to say that the theory of karma (wages of sin) continually resulting in being recycled into unpleasant lives is not really inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. That is, if one isn't somehow relieved of the karma debt (sin), one is condemned to staying in the realm of darkness.
The question is, how can a blind man make himself see? True, repeated experiences of lives may serve as a form of purgatory in order to point the way out of the cycle of endless TIME (time isn't money, time is work, time is sin),
but this, according to the Bible, isn't what is appointed. You're still part of the sin realm if you go to hell where your worm doesn't die and the flames aren't extinguished (that is, you're sent to a very harsh labor camp which has no exit from the sin-life treadmill, but there is still a glimmer of hope). What is appointed is to die once and avoid being cast back into that maelstrom, which is reserved for the devil and his angels.
Still, a blind man can't make himself see. He needs a doctor.
I don't think the Gospel of Thomas is spiritual poison at all. I think it just seems weird because we aren't accustomed to these other sayings of Jesus. However, so far I haven't encountered anything in the Gospel of Thomas that seems wrong. One problem with this gospel is that it lacks an oral tradition, so that many of the sayings are hard to understand without any context. In any event, suggesting that this gospel is poisonous is very strong language. Are there particular ideas that it suggests that don't sit well with you?
I haven't read this tract in a long time, so I don't recall specifics. However, my recollection is that there were things that seemed intended to nullify the unity of Jesus as God and Jesus as man and to put a false interpretation on the resurrection.
In general, I have found that the men who selected the biblical canon did a good job of separating out chaff, though there is some disagreement about the deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha).
So far I haven't read anything in Thomas that even touches on the resurrection or the divinity of Jesus, but perhaps later on.
Post a Comment